posted at 10:02 am on January 1, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

It’s not much of an injunction, but it’s enough to put a stop to its enforcement for a couple of days, at least. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee to the high court, issued the order just hours before the mandate would have gone into effect (via Frank Weathers at Patheos):

Only hours before the law was to take effect, a Supreme Court justice on Tuesday blocked implementation of part of President Barack Obama’s health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for employees that includes birth control coverage.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s decision came after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the U.S. Those groups had rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesday’s start of portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

The government is “temporarily enjoined from enforcing against applicants the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Sotomayor said in the order. She gave government officials until 10 a.m. EST (1500 GMT) Friday to respond to her order.

In other words, this order could get lifted almost as soon as it was imposed, assuming that HHS responds in time — and they will. Sotomayor could also leave the injunction in place until the court has a chance to hear all sides, which would take months but is inevitable anyway. The Obama administration will have a difficult time explaining how a delay would hurt its interests more than those who are being forced to choose between compliance and their religious beliefs, but they have occasionally succeeded at doing so.

Would Sotomayor take much convincing on that point? I would have doubted it, but before yesterday I would have doubted that Sotomayor would have issued this injunction, even for a couple of days. It’s worth noting, though, that Sotomayor’s isn’t the only injunction in place:

Sotomayor’s decision to delay the contraceptive portion of the law was joined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also issued an emergency stay for Catholic-affiliated groups challenging the contraceptive provision.

Even if Sotomayor rescinds the injunction later this week, the lower court’s injunction might remain in place. The DC Circuit has jurisdiction over the operations of the federal government, which would effectively stymie HHS from enforcing the mandate anywhere, at least theoretically.

Everyone knew that the HHS mandate would end up at the Supreme Court. It has now arrived there, and I would assume that the rest of the court will be anxious to settle the matter so that the patchwork of decisions from lower courts can be resolved permanently.

I’m not sure that you can draw any conclusions about either how the stay might ultimately be handled by Justice Sotomayor, or the full Court, from this action. In some respects, granting the stay in this particular case is likely the most ideal solution until the Court can hear opposing arguments on a more permanent stay via the Federal Government’s briefs. Nor would I draw any particular conclusions about the fact that it was Justice Sotomayor who issued the temporary stay. I suspect that the main reason she granted the stay was simply for the purposes of maintaining the status quo until she, or the full Court, can rule on the matter. That said, if the Supreme Court does ultimately grant a stay pending appeal in this case, then it could be an indication that there is a sufficient majority on the Supreme Court skeptical of the mandate under both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to potentially strike down the mandate at some point in the future. In the end, though, that too would still be pure guess work.

There were a number of rulings yesterday on the contraception mandate, which Doug runs down well. He also notes that the Supreme Court already has one HHS contraception mandate on the docket for 2014, and might end up consolidating all of these issues into one decision around June.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Sotomayor has been a wildcard from time to time. Ginsburg and Kagan are so thunderingly dumb, such national embarrassments — and history will find them as such — that I have wondered if Sotomayor wants to put a little space between herself and them.

How come big gov loving Progressives never tilt to the right when they have been on the court awhile…..but so called conservatives like John Roberts and Kennedy tilt left more and more as they “evolve”?

No worries, just like Obama’s executive order that promised no federal money would be allocated to abortions—that garnered the final vote to pass this nightmare—this coverage will find its way back into the bill no matter what the Supreme Court decides. Since when has this administration followed or adhered to any court decisions? Obviously, the Supreme Court has not figured out that Obama is our Messiah and takes precedent over this irrelevant institution.

Well, SCOTUS has accepted the private-employers cases (Hobby Lobby, from the Tenth Circuit, and Conestoga Wood Specialists, from the Third Circuit) and will be heard soon in the coming months.

Now, we have the non-church, religious-organization cases. Here, we have the nuns in the Tenth Circuit and the Archdiocese of Washington in the DC Circuit. Also, yesterday, Notre Dame lost in its attempt to get injunctive relief in the Seventh Circuit.

We need a scorecard. I think some other circuits may have some cases in the second group.

Not making excuses or asking forgiveness, but it seems the Supremes were as much in the dark as the rest of the country as to what the ACA really meant to individuals. It wasn’t that we MUST buy health insurance, it was that we had to buy what they offered and in a manner that they proscribed.
It’s hard for anyone, much less the Supremes, to imagine that a government could force someone to buy ‘this thing, at this price’ that does this’ and not violate the Constitution.

The Supremes that allowed this mess to be visited on all Americans should know that we blame them as much as we do MrObama.

It’s absurd for courts to deny injunctive relief against NEW ruinous penalties until SCOTUS hashes this out.

This will be interesting. I can’t see SCOTUS consolidating the private-employer cases with the religious-organization cases, but we’ll see.

But within six months or so, we’ll see whether this country still upholds religious freedom. Liberals can scream all they want, but plaintiffs in both sets of cases SHOULD prevail 9-0, though I’m betting the religious organizations prevail 9-0, while the private employers prevail 6-3.

Also, yesterday, Notre Dame lost in its attempt to get injunctive relief in the Seventh Circuit.

We need a scorecard. I think some other circuits may have some cases in the second group.

BuckeyeSam on January 1, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Unfortunately, I think Kagan is the emergency justice for the Seventh Circuit, but then again, I can’t see her bucking the trend here.

The interesting (and complex) wrinkle is what to do with employers sort of in-between the Little Sister of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. There are schools, hospitals, child welfare societies, etc. that were founded by religious orders, but now have mostly secular (and sometimes non-believer) employees. Notre Dame could be in this intermediate group.

Hosanna-Tabor focused, although not exclusively, on the religious mission of the whole school, and how every teacher was to be part of the mission, not just the religion teachers. If the institution has become so secularized, how can it be distinguished from Hobby Lobby? (The area of “sepraration of church and state” is a mess, in part due to O’Connor’s mushy “jurisprudence.”)

The Obama administrations wants to limit the “freedom to worship” to a very narrow group of exclusively religious functions staffed by religious. I doubt they can get five votes for that.

How come big gov loving Progressives never tilt to the right when they have been on the court awhile…..but so called conservatives like John Roberts and Kennedy tilt left more and more as they “evolve”?

Curious (NSA emails perhaps?).

PappyD61 on January 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM

After hearing how the O-care vote went down — Roberts changing his vote at the last moment and begging Kennedy to join him, and Kennedy saying “Are you nuts?!” — it was clear that the regime has some dirt on Roberts. And imagine what they have on Kagan and Sotomayor. Everyone thinks those two got put there b/c they’re liberal — I think they got put there because they’re blackmail-able. Sotomayor may be throwing in right now with the religious groups, but the regime will eventually show her some photos, some text messages, some emails, that will change her mind — just like they did with Roberts.

Just as there were many expectations that the original law would not be upheld there is now this ruse. It is possible or perhaps probable that this was done so that the court can find there is no reason to respect the religious aspects of the individual mandate. Then it becomes a clean reality and no further consideration is needed. End of story, PERIOD.

Par for the course. Anything to take the heat off obamacare to make it more politically palatable, especially to traditional democrat constituencies who they need on board. The unions got their exemption, the catholics will get one too.

Fake imo.
She’s manufacturing a fake history. This will be one thing..maybe the only thing, that she will be able to point to in establishing her history of being “unbiased” and not a “leftist”.
I’m sure it will work. Look how all the other things that have happened under this regime that are all but forgotten, from the GM takeover, to F&F the NSA, IRS, etc, etc.
Want to know how much we the people will resist? Just look at the pictures of the line of people eager to register their guns and ammo. Rather than standing and fighting by claiming their Constitutional rights, they are lined up like good comrades.

This is just another political twist by Obama. Obama knows he will lose face and “respect” if he delayed this mandate, so he squeezed Sotomayor to “pretend” she is “neutral” by defusing a potentially vote-losing problem come this November. This lying Obama scumbag is pure evil. His narcissism will be his undoing…and the sooner the better.

Millions of Americans are now uninsured, many for the first time in their lives. It is a national disgrace that should not be ignored just because the lazy shiftless loser the law is named after is off on vacation with his vile worthless family.

Well, SCOTUS has accepted the private-employers cases (Hobby Lobby, from the Tenth Circuit, and Conestoga Wood Specialists, from the Third Circuit) and will be heard soon in the coming months.

Now, we have the non-church, religious-organization cases. Here, we have the nuns in the Tenth Circuit and the Archdiocese of Washington in the DC Circuit. Also, yesterday, Notre Dame lost in its attempt to get injunctive relief in the Seventh Circuit.
We need a scorecard. I think some other circuits may have some cases in the second group.

It’s absurd for courts to deny injunctive relief against NEW ruinous penalties until SCOTUS hashes this out.

This will be interesting. I can’t see SCOTUS consolidating the private-employer cases with the religious-organization cases, but we’ll see.

But within six months or so, we’ll see whether this country still upholds religious freedom. Liberals can scream all they want, but plaintiffs in both sets of cases SHOULD prevail 9-0, though I’m betting the religious organizations prevail 9-0, while the private employers prevail 6-3.

BuckeyeSam on January 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I agree with your assessment that the plaintiffs will prevail in both sets…as to the victory margins? I will not take a guess! :)

Will Obamacare be repealed or won’t it? Will Congress fund it or won’t it? Will the web site be fixed or not? Blah, blah, blah. We the people just need to do what we need to do and Congress be damned. Resist. Refuse. Revolt. EXEMPT OURSELVES! We did not comply with Prohibition and we simply should not comply with Obamacare. For religious reasons. For privacy reasons. For the cause of liberty and freedom and in protest of the idea that the federal government (under one party rule, no less), can force private citizens to purchase anything with our own money. Are we citizens or subjects? Mice or (wo)men? Just say NO to socialism and to the corrupt, unionized, far left IRS: the gestapo of America’s political class. After all, the federal government ignores millions of illegals who are breaking U.S. immigration law every day. Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. All we have to do is just say no to a scheme we all know is un-American and a violation of our most basic founding fundamentals of privacy, self reliance, limited government and individual freedom.

How To Opt Out Of Obamacare

Know your options and become savvy self-pay patients

Join a health care sharing ministry. These are voluntary, charitable membership organizations that agree to share medical bills among the membership. They function similar to insurance, and are probably the best alternative to conventional health insurance. There are four of them, at least that I know of. Three are open only to practicing Christians (Samaritan Ministries, Christian Healthcare Ministries, and Christian Care Ministry) while a fourth, Liberty HealthShare, is open to anyone who agrees with their ethical commitment to religious liberty. They operate entirely outside of Obamacare’s regulations, and typically offer benefits for about half the cost of similar health insurance. Members are also exempt from having to pay the tax for being uninsured.

I thought it was the law of the land. How can anyone in this administration (I know she is a judge) just step up and make proclamations? We’ll uphold this and ignore this. Time for impeachment. And I don’t give a bama’s azz if the senate doesn’t do its job.

No one would take his kids away. The threat is not about that…it’s about accusing him and his wife of racism, for not adopting troubled hued kids in America…going to such lengths to adopt blonde kids…from Ireland…via Latin America…

That’s it. I just checked back in before leaving, and I haven’t had a chance to analyze the link. Still, it looks like what I was looking for. If I can, I will try to suggest that they show into which circuits those district court cases will funnel. Sure, I could find a map or list of the states feeding into each circuit, but it would help people see how the federal court system works in general and for these cases in particular.

Beyond that, consider the number of cases involved. This isn’t even a close case. That the president and Congress enacted such an affront to religious liberty out to be grounds for impeachment or censure. This was nothing but an exercise to exhaust the resources of religious organizations. And lefty-leaning religious tool who go along with this shite better realize that they will be the first to have the tables turned on them as soon as the progs take over for good.

Agree, She loses nothing by this stall, but Obama gains. Sotomayer is playing cover for Obama

Obama cannot afford to appear soft on contraceptive mandate to his base by making an exemption for the religious

Obama also loses if the mandate is enforced before the election. It might steal some Catholic/progressive votes from the left

There is a two pronged attack on freedom of religion. I saw that years ago, when a gay rights lawyer stated you can have freedom of religion or gay rights but not both

The gay rights movement is being framed not as gaining the right to be gay, but as transferring the definition of morals from religions to the State.

Both gay rights and contraceptive mandates remove the right to conscientious objection. Dissenters do not have to perform the deed, but they cannot refuse to facilitate the deed. So what is freedom of religion?

Can the State insist a store sell marijuana? By these precedents, it could. So where is conscience?

No one would take his kids away. The threat is not about that…it’s about accusing him and his wife of racism, for not adopting troubled hued kids in America…going to such lengths to adopt blonde kids…from Ireland…via Latin America…

I’m glad you said something. I’m on this side of my monitor wondering why this board hasn’t updated. I changed from IE to Firefox and back again. Hitting F5. Then wondering ok how the heck do I fix this.

We can make it the QOTD. If the board doesn’t update….we might have no choice~

No one would take his kids away. The threat is not about that…it’s about accusing him and his wife of racism, for not adopting troubled hued kids in America…going to such lengths to adopt blonde kids…from Ireland…via Latin America…

Schadenfreude on January 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM

This is a really good comment. It sort of sums up what the real point is. That nothing, absolutely nothing a Conservative does is above being twisted I to so ethics g evil by the left. They absolutely believe the Romney’s would make an offspring of theirs adopt a minority child for some political gain. They said it, they believe it.

Who would have thought Sotomayor would at least pretend to care about the Constitution more than Roberts?

Flange on January 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I think that even a liberal-minded justice would follow what I construe as a procedural action even if she thought the challenge would fail. The liberal justices are not stupid. They have their point of view on how the Constitution should be interpreted but that does not mean they don’t take their job seriously.